Source first?

[caesar]

interesting discussion!

My personal take is that as hobbyists who do not spend all of their time building systems, we can look to experts who listen to a lot gear and have heard many systems at different systems at various price points. This % rule of thumb is no different than a percentage a (respectable) loan officer would use to come up with a mortgage someone can afford or using the lsat score to guide with a law school admission. These are just suggestions. But there are strong correlations, although not causality or "proof", that a good LSAT score will result in success in law school or a certain salary will result with a successful payoff of a mortgage. Of course, there are some people who are brilliant lawyers who flubbed their LSAT or people properly managing their money so they can live in a certain home. But no one said this was an absolute truth, but just a principle to get the most musical pleasure.

I am just curious how close people are to the % and whether people who believe that the source is 1st are actually living up to it. Interestingly, Harley is not!

 

[Orb]

Orb-my head hurts trying to follow your logic. While this whole percentage thread was mildly entertaining, I don't know if anyone thinks about percentages when they buy gear. I doubt most do-I know I don't. It certainly isn't anything to get worked up over and fret that maybe you screwed up when you bought a certain component because now your percentages are out of whack according to Robert Harley. Big deal. Buy whatever you can afford and enjoy it.

Hehe sorry
And I do agree with you, definitely sure no-one gets worked up over this as I am pretty sure no-one used the % rule, seems to be some journalists do to take up space I guess on an article and those who want to say audiophiles spend too much on a specific component that they feel is excessive (love reading AVSForum for those humbug posts but heck if I would become a member there ).

I guess simplifying it is this; anyone using the % ratio as a guide to puchase a product run the risk of excluding products that are "too cheap" or "too expensive", where there could be an ideal product in terms of their listening preferences or other requirements based on ergonomics or functionality.
For the rest of us I guess it would be more of a fun conversational piece as you say using it more historically to see how it breaks down.

Anyway just thinking of Harley's 40% for a source, if you then also spend 40% on the speaker that really does not leave much for an amp (pre-power-or integrated) when including some cables and a couple room acoustic panels.
I do feel a good preamp and power amp are a requirement as well for the best listening and usually if going seperate each would be more expensive than say a high quality transport/CD player for me.

Cheers
Orb

 

[rblnr]

digital two channel system

60% speakers
21% amps
12% preamp
5% dac
2% cables

not including my amp stands and rack because I don't think they do anything other than hold the listed stuff up in an aesthetically pleasing and flexible way. The rack is a solid platform for my TT though.

 

[Ethan Winer]

What Ethan has is studio monitors.

Well, you could also call them bookshelf speakers. I also have a sub since my Mackie 624 speakers are very small and flat down to only 49 Hz. However, small or not, they can play very loud without noticeable distortion - louder than I can stand for extended periods.

it would not be my choice for far field listening.

This brings up a great question. How big a room do you need for successful far-field listening? My living room is 25 feet front to back, 16 feet wide, and the ceiling peaks in the middle (front to back) at 11 feet high. When sitting on the couch my ears are nine feet (sitting forward) or ten feet (leaning back) away from the front speakers (arc) in front of me. I consider this to be near field, or maybe mid-field. We do have a second couch directly behind the first one, raised up on blocks, but the sound is not as clear back there because the ceiling and side-wall reflection panels don't extend coverage to that far back.

So how big a room do you need in order to consider listening far field? And how far away from the speakers is "far" field anyway?

--Ethan

 

[mep]

I guess simplifying it is this; anyone using the % ratio as a guide to puchase a product run the risk of excluding products that are "too cheap" or "too expensive", where there could be an ideal product in terms of their listening preferences or other requirements based on ergonomics or functionality.

OK Orb, now I get your point and I agree. I just couldn't make it through the jungle of what you had written before. Your posts kind of reminded me of a woman telling you a story about something simple like going down to the store to buy a loaf of bread. All of a sudden before we get to the store in her story, her grandma comes up, past car repairs, the guy next door that bothers her, her mother's birthday present, and on and on and on....until you go running screaming into the night.

 

[Ethan Winer]

I think that's true of any small speaker, pro or domestic -- they will sound better, closer, in a smaller room.

Of course, and the reduced level of reflections is what really makes near field "work" well. The opposite is true too of course. If someone hears small speakers sound poor when they're sitting far away, the reason has nothing to do with the speaker size. It's all about the room acoustics and untamed reflections. That's what makes the sound seem harsh. From a physics standpoint, the physical size of the speaker cabinet should have no relevance beyond frequency response and other known effects.

--Ethan

 

[Orb]

OK Orb, now I get your point and I agree. I just couldn't make it through the jungle of what you had written before. Your posts kind of reminded me of a woman telling you a story about something simple like going down to the store to buy a loaf of bread. All of a sudden before we get to the store in her story, her grandma comes up, past car repairs, the guy next door that bothers her, her mother's birthday present, and on and on and on....until you go running screaming into the night.

LOL, well the earlier post touched more factors albeit incredibly briefly because they probably werent worth the effort compared to the last explanation that covered the crux of it better hehe.
Cheers
Orb

 

[microstrip]

Yesterday I was listening to the new Sonus Faber top of the range (now called "The Sonus Faber", as they droped the Fenice model name) at our distributor. He assembled a fantastic system - Metronome Kalista CD transport and tube DAC, Audio Research Anniversary REF40 preamplifier and 610T power amplifiers, Transparent Reference MM2 and Valhalla (speaker) cables.

The sound of this system was surely astonishing. The best vocal performance I have ever heard, real dynamics (not loudness), highly detailed but natural sounding, and soundtage was as firm as a rock - everything in place but connected to other sound sources. My Shostakovitch symphonies, conducted by Bernard Haitink, (Decca CD) sounded better than ever. The strings spread in the proper places with sweetness and authority, brass and woodwinds sounded lifelike. Bass was deep and firm, it was hard to believe that you were listening to tube amplifiers.

I have hard several times the Alexandria at this place, and the The Sonus Faber seem to be at the same performance level, some people considering that it surpassed this refence at same aspects. Never in my life Monteverdi sounded so lifelike, except in good concert halls.

Not considering cables cost, the budget division was approximately source 28%, amplification 20% and speakers 52%. It I had to reduce the cost by 20% where should I cut? My guess: may be in the source.

We also listened to LPs, but I will post about it in another thread ...

 

[MylesBAstor]

ok orb, now i get your point and i agree. I just couldn't make it through the jungle of what you had written before. Your posts kind of reminded me of a woman telling you a story about something simple like going down to the store to buy a loaf of bread. All of a sudden before we get to the store in her story, her grandma comes up, past car repairs, the guy next door that bothers her, her mother's birthday present, and on and on and on....until you go running screaming into the night.

lol....

 

[Orb]

lol....

Yeah next time I can save effort and just do 2 lines lol
Just to expand a little on a previous factor-consideration, check if journalists adjust the % figure over the years, the answer is probably yes due to technology-model improvements that changes the price of buying.
The % figure is only relevent and only then partially at a specific moment in time, in the example of 40% source it is fair to say source components for an average good one these days is cheaper but yet comparable to quite a few more expensive models a few years ago, so 40% back then could equate to 30% these days or even less, while say preamps still maintain a high price for near reference performance/quality.
Maybe in a few years time digital sources will increase in price due to some major breakthrough that produces sound comparable to vinyl (for those who feel there is still a difference in quality).

Cheers
Orb

 

[niklasthedolphin]

Trandsducers first.

"dolph"

 

[mullard88]

I don't subscribe to any budget allocation formula. I allow my mood and ears to decide whether a component will become part of the chain.

 

[silviajulieta]

Robert Harley recommends spending 40% on the source in his latest book. Having recently heard the Scarlatti, I understand where he is coming from.

The ironic thing is that since he is a digital guru, you would think he would try to live up to what he writes about. But he is not even close. His MIT cables cost more than the Meridian CD player he uses. His speakers are the Wilson Alexandrias. And he likes Pass XA 100 amps and Audio Research monoblocks. That Meridian CD player is "only" $20K. By my crude calculations, his digital source is 8-10% of his system cost. If any guy should be using the Scarlatti, it is him.

Do you guys believe in this old adage? What percentage of your system's total cost have you actually spent on your source? For the record, I'm also in the same range as Harley.

Dear Caesar: I think that other persons already give you almost any answer we could find about so I only want to add this:

IMHO a Home Audio System is a chain be composed of several and different links ( audio items. ) where each link has a " weight " a different " weight " in the system overall quality performance. All we know that our system quality performance level is almost determined by the weakest link in that audio system chain and from this point of view each single link is important, critical and we have to take care on each one.

Now, we know too that when an audio signal pass through each single system link that signal " suffer " some degradation level , in a " perfect " audio system world the best any system link can do is that the audio signal pass through it with no degradation but unfortunately this is only an imposible dream . There is no single audio system link that can/could improve the audio signal quality level only can degrade it.

With this in mind we need to choose first than all the best quality performance ( accurate and " distortionless/noise-free ". ) source level we can achieve for that source can " hold/support " all the links degradations including the ones in the speakers/room interactions and including our each one " errors " in system overall set up. Additional with out source we have nothing!. I agree here with those posts where people thinks that those % makes no sense at all for determine the audio link importance in an audio chain.

The source/software ( this is a UNIT. ) IMHO has the heavy weight responsability in an audio system for quality performance.

The source/software is IMHO the " King " and all the other ( each one ) audio links in the audio system chain ( including our each one skill level to make the right whole audio system set up. ) are only the " subjects/slaves " at the King's service.

The main target on each one of these slaves ( audio link ) are to add the less and to lose the less of the source audio signal trying to preserve its integrity with the lowest possible degradation. For this can happen IMHO all those audio " slaves " must be: accurate and " distortionless/noise-free " and must be integrated on the system audio chain with at least two main system targets: matched electrical impedances ( between audio links/slaves. ) and mechanical matching. With out these the set of " slaves " can't honor/ed the SOURCE/SOFTWARE.

So the King " takes all ".


Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[Nicholas Bedworth]

Going totally digital, meaning digital source/processor and digitally-controlled amps, means that the only signal-bearing cabling left that costs more than pennies a foot are the speaker cables. Everything else is connected up via USB or CAT 5. Power cables will always be there, but layers of devices and cabling go away: No preamplifier, no DAC. The scenario here is similar to and one step beyond what Meridian already does, except that amps are out of the speaker box.

What do people think about this new architecture? It certainly changes the percentage discussion considerably.

 

[Nicholas Bedworth]

@caesar... keep in mind that Robert's equipment changes every few weeks. And Jon Valin often has high-end gear to review that complements what Robert has (Jon did the review of the Scarlatti as I recall). Print is extremely limited in terms of how many products can be reviewed each year, and the "budget" for Robert or Jon is even more restricted. These are internal constraints that influence the ratios of what a Robert or a Jon might have in their system at any particular point in time.

Robert's observations are intended to guide persons purchasing gear for their home use, which is a different situation than what reviewers have.

 

[c1ferrari]

Let's ask this. Has anyone cared about the percentages before buying something?

LOL -- that's quite amusing/revealing, Amir

 

[Nicholas Bedworth]

Well, the dealer probably cares, a lot

 

[c1ferrari]

To me the "source" is the recording itself. That's the biggest quality factor,...

--Ethan

+1

 

[niklasthedolphin]

To me the "source" is the recording itself. That's the biggest quality factor, and everything else is way less important IMO.

--Ethan

In my world, what you describe is the analog reference.
How the music did sound when it came out over the rim of the stage or how the music sounded when performance took place in the big "together-room" in the studio. That's the reference. That's analog.

Only exception is when music comes directly from digital instrumentation directly into the DAW for recording.

"dolph"

 

[LL21]

Having just done my own math...forget what i actually paid (since i am all s/hand)...at retail prices, i am at roughly 50% in speakers and around 10% in digital source...the strange thing is that this high speaker % only became like this after i traded in my Strads for Wilson X-1/Grand Slamms. I suspect a good reason Robert Harley's % may be different than his advice is because of his Alexandrias. i suspect if you were to look at "median" systems...$5K-$20K...perhaps his % make more sense? just a thought.

another way to look at it...there are a lot of world class "top 10-type" electronics you can buy that (even if you add them all up) will not pass $160K (rough price of alexandrias). Even ARC REf 5 $12K...Zanden 3000s preamp $18K...Metronomke Kalista REf...$50K... If he owned "only" Maxx 3s at roughly 70K, all of his % might quickly change...skewing towards electronics.